Talk:Intrepid class
Nomination for featured article Self-nomination. I included information about the class' history, its tactical and defensive systems, and the starship's interior design. I tried to include as many referense as I could remember from the series. Ottens 19:05, 11 Jul 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 01:02, Jul 14, 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. Though it does still need a lot of references, I'm sure these will be filled in later. Another great article! -- Redge 13:23, 22 Jul 2004 (CEST) * Archived --Alan del Beccio 07:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC) Removal of Borgified Voyager image DarkHorizon, I noticed you removed the Image:Voyager Borgified.jpg image from the page. Whilst that indeed seems logical, I included the image so there would be a view of the Intrepid class starship both from above and from underneath. Would you prefer I'd upload a non-Borgified top-view image of the Intrepid class instead? Ottens 12:31, 5 Sep 2004 (CEST) Warp Core ejection There was a Voyager episode once, in which the warp core was ejected, following warp core breach. However, the core didn't explode, so Voyager went to retrieve it. When they arrived, they found the core gone; it was stolen by some aliens. In the end, they were able to get it back, of course. I don't remember the name of the episode, if anyone does, I can add a reference. Ottens 12:56, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) :That would be . Alex Peckover 13:00, Jul 6, 2004 (CEST) :Thank you very much. Ottens 13:02, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST) Further specifics I dare not touch this article because I find it rather well organized, however, I have found a few references from VOY "Drone (episode)" might be squeezed into this article, if someone so wishes: * duranium hull (perhaps a given, but true none-the-less) * plasma-based power distribution (also, perhaps a given) * tricyclic life-support systems --FuturamaGuy 18:14, 2 Oct 2004 (CEST) :Perhaps, besides "Tactical Systems", create a category "Engineering Systems", which would include information about, for example, the Intrepid's warp drive systems, and being one of the first to carry bio-packs instead of isolinear chips... Ottens 13:29, 3 Oct 2004 (CEST) :Like this... ;-) Ottens 13:35, 3 Oct 2004 (CEST) * I know there's information somewhere about how on Voyager, the mess hall actually used to be the Captain's personal dining hall, or something to that effect. If anyone has access to that source information, it would be more appropriate to reference that as it is the original purpose of that room, and not as a mess hall. || THOR 03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (GMT) * Note to Pd THOR... The area which was converted into the kitchen was the Captain's dinning room. If you view the early scenes in the pilot you can see that the wall where Neelix's kitchen would be there are replicators. benjrh 07:02, 30 Jul 2005 (ET) Aeroshuttle I'm presuming that Voyager isn't the only Intrepid-class to have an Aeroshuttle... shouldn't there be a link to Aeroshuttle on this page too??? I just don't know where to put it! zsingaya 17:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC) *Indeed, there should be a link to Aeroshuttle. All Intrepid-class vessels have one. -- Enzo Aquarius 17:18, 14 May 2005 (UTC) "Proprietary Federation Technology"? "Holodecks are proprietary Federation technology." I don't think that's accurate, Holodecks appear to be fairly standard 24th century technology in that part of the Galaxy, and some races had them well before that. We've seen the Ferengi Holosuites on DS9, we saw a Romulan Holodeck in The Mind's Eye, Barash in Future Imperfect had what was essentially a holodeck, and even as far back as the first season of Enterprise, Starfleet was running into races that had simple Holodecks (and the technology was at least theoretically given to the Klingons, although they apparently didn't make much use of it, or kept it hidden from the Federation until after the Khitomer Accords). -- 16:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Top Speed? I could have sworn I heard some where that "Voyager is capible of a sustained cruising velocity of Warp 9.975". Is this true? Where did I hear this? -- Nat 2005/6/3 :It says it right on the page - it came from Caretaker, the pilot. --Gvsualan 08:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm Pretty sure this information is incorrect. I am quite sure that 9.975 is to fast to be actually held as cruising speed. I think it can be held for 24-32 hours, something like that. Phaser Arrays As stated in the "DS9 Technical Manual" the Intrepid class uses Type-VIII phaser arrays, not type-X as stated here. I tried to correct this problem, but Shran, who obviously thinks he knows everything, reverts this page to show the incorrect information. I would suggest to SHran to read the "DS9 technical manual" and then he will see I was correct. P.S.: Most probably this comment will be removed like everything else I posted/edited to contribute to the correctness of the informations on Memory-Alpha. :I believe you are thinking of the ''Yeager'' type vessel, as the Intrepid class doesn't appear in the DS9 tech manual. Also, the yeager type already lists that information. Also, in an episodoe of voyager, it is said that Voyager has type 10 phasers, which would even then over-rule the book. - AJHalliwell 10:03, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) :: Would you please state in which episode? I believe it is never mentioned in any episode or movie, but is mentioned in the "Voyager technical manual", and my fault is that I stated the wrong for reference. I will not contribute to Memory-Alpha anymore, as I can see that my help is unappreciated and unwelcome. ::: Your help is very appreciated and welcome, just be sure to try to get your facts straight. We tend to be very strict about canon here. For example, there is not Voyager technical manual. - AJHalliwell 10:46, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::: Technical manuals are not considered canon, anyway, and therefore cannot be used when putting info into articles. --Shran 21:43, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::::You can use info from a manual, as long as you say the info might not be canon. Tough Little Ship 21:47, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) ::::::But in no episode of Voyager they mention which type of phaser arrays they're using. If I am mistaken, I apologise and would like if you could tell me which episode it is mentioned in, for my future reference. ::::::BTW. look here, I belive it is suitable evidence for the existence of the VTM: http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=37884&item=6549460934&rd=1 :::::::I personally don't know which episode it was mentioned in, but if A.J. said it was mentioned in an episode, you can bet that it was. He could be researching to find out which episode it was, so just have patience until he replies back with the episode. --Shran 00:22, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) :::::::: If you have a vgue idea such as what happened in the episode of what season i could check it out for you -- Kahless 00:34, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) (wow that's a lot of :'s) Your confidence is appreciated, I hope to fulfill it. I am looking for it, but the site I like to use to look up my Voyager things is having some Internet troubles it seems ("Janet's Star Trek Voyager Site") But to take a shot in the dark, I'm gonna say when Dala showed the alien a schematic of Voyager's weapons in , but don't count on this (I'm looking...) Also, that eBay link, if it's never been released to the public, it's LESS then apocrypha. I'm not even inclined to believe that's authentic, anyone can download the Star Trek font off the Internet and type "by Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda", "making it canon". But it might be, I dunno (written by them, certainly not official canon) Nice, none the less. - AJHalliwell 03:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) :"optronically targeted phasers" is the only thing they say about the phasers. I don't remember that episode clearly enough to see what was showed on the schematics. I will be glad if you find that reference as it could be useful to me and the Croatian Star Trek Center, where we are discussing Voyagers weapons in over 700 posts. ::I see noone wants to really find a legitimate source for this... ::::Bringing this up again. We need to cite this, or loose it. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC) I never heard from phaser class in the episodes, but you all think this lil ship can produce the beam-firepower of the large Galaxy? (If yes, than UFP dont need anything other than intrepids in battles. 10 intrepid can produce 10 Galaxy firepower, and they are more agile than the Galaxy class...) Torpedo Launchers I'm a little curious about the fifth torpedo launcher mentioned in this article. Clearly there are two forward above the deflector dish, and two aft on the spine, but where does this fifth come from. The article identifies it as on the base of the engineering hull, under the deflector dish, leading me to suspect you mean the little piece hanging down below the deflector dish. Aside from the fact that there is no visible launch tube here, I have at no time during the series seen torpedoes launched from this point. If anyone has an explanation and can justify its listing here, I would be most interested in hearing it. The fifth torpedo tube is an interesting issue, you can see it being launched here: http://www.star-trek-voyager.org/resolu/resolu252.jpg. There are various utilities under the ship, however, none of which appear to be torpedo tubes but rather Engineering utilities (Warp Core hatch, possible connections for restock, etc.). Even though no torpedo launchers are shown, one was launched from a 'mystical' 5th tube, so thus there is technically 5 tubes. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:25, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) That's definfitely interesting, but taking this as canon makes me wonder about something else. Should we list the Galaxy class as having thirteen phaser arrays, considering the mystical phaser beams erupting from the forward torpedo launcher on the stardrive in Darmok.HaganeNoKokoro 19:45, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) :: That link is now invalid, could someone provide me with a replacement, I would like to see that 5th launcher 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC) ::: It's official. Intrepid does have a ventral fifth torpedo launcher in the very center belly of the ship. Here is a series of images depicting the firing from "Resolutions" to solve the issue for everyone. http://www.nic.fi/~jakobs/trek/fifth_launcher.jpg -- 13:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Intrepid Class Dimensions I'm curious where these dimensions for the Intrepid class came from, and whether or not they are cannon given that the width listed is opposed to the one on screen mention I am familiar with. Specifically in when Voyager needs to escape a quantum singularity, the hole through which they need to escape is said to be 120m wide, to which Lt. Paris comments that this gives them less than two meters clearance on either side. This suggests an overall width of about 117m, less than the 133m listed here. While I have no doubt that the ratios listed are correct, I'm wondering if the values were determined by comparison of the pictures that were at the end of the Star Trek Encylcopedia, many of which (such as the Klingon Battlecruiser) were not shown to proper scale.HaganeNoKokoro 19:57, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC) :that is why we in ma/de list this ship as ~300m long. 350 Meters are not canon. link --Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 10:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC) :It has a width of 116m as said in the episode VGR: Parallax--Judgeking 16:44, 20 December 2007 Reverted Edit I reverted most of the edit made by an unregistered contributor. I'll explain every single change I made below. Please refrain from reverting these changes if there's any dispute until the matter has been resolved. Thank you. * I put the side-view of the Intrepid class vessel on top. Makes more sense to me to have the bottom view at the bottom of the sidebar. * I removed the image of the warp core ejection from the page. The image is already on the Warp core ejection system article, to which this article links. Besides, the image only unnecessarily takes up space here. * I italicized the additional referenced to Intrepid class under "Transporter systems". Before adding new information to an article, please briefly check the already applies style. * I moved the text about the "Transporter systems" further down. This section hardly falls under "Crew support systems", and probably deserves a section of its own rather than being a mere subcategory of the former. Furthermore, I removed the transporter room image, because I think the lack of information about the Intrepid class' transporter room on this article hardly justifies an image being placed alongside with it. * Besides, I moved the detailed image of the saucer section down to the "Background information" section, as the image more suits the text there. Ottens 14:55, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Other featured ship class articles include images of their main systems like transporters too, see for example (and corridor shots also). And there's no reason to remove the landing procedure images, that's a really important feature. And you should use the standard thumb size of 180px like all other FAs (that's the minimum, 200px is "normal"). --Porthos 22:11, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC) Yes, but the Galaxy class article, for examples, includes a little more information on its transporter systems than "The transporter rooms are located on Deck #," since basically that's all there is about Transporter systems on the Intrepid class article right now, along with the notation that in emergencies, people can be transported directly to sickbay, but that's standard practice on all Starfleet vessels. There is no "minimum" thumb size, unless I missed a new rule being added, and in that case I offer my apoligies. Sometimes, I prefer to keep thumbs 10 or 20 pixels lower than 180px width, and that's only because they integrate in the text better than. So unless there really is something like a "minimum" thumb size..? Ottens 08:24, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) :There should be an image size policy, the pics in this article are too small, especially the one of the mess hall. --Memory 22:11, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::I think the standard thumb size as generated by the system when nothing else is specified is as good as it gets. Whether you make it bigger or smaller, someone will complain. Also, the images are just there to illustrate. If someone wants to see all the details, he/she can always click on the image... (Clarification: Was written while Memory changed the image size. I prefer the way it is now, without any sizes specified.) -- Cid Highwind 22:27, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) Memory, there is no policy on image size. You claim some images are too small? I'm using 1280 by 1024 resolution, and the images looks perfectly thumbed to me. As Cid said, if people want to see more detail on an image, they can click on it to see the full view. When an image is thumbed 180px width instead of 160px, there truly isn't way more detail than on the latter. Large images take up too much small on small screens (there are still people who use a 800 by 600 resolution!), and in this specific case, it looks mostly better when the images are a little smaller than 180px width. Ottens 13:56, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) ::It doesn't look better because number one rule of wiki layout for thumbs is: the image has to be bigger than it's description, a rule that you often disregard. And we don't optimize for 800*600 like all other websites too. --Memory 18:16, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) The reason the desciptions underneath the thumbs are usually more width than the thumb itself when I edit them is because I believe that these descriptions actually serve a use. For example, the description underneath the mess hall thumb could be "The mess hall." If that were so, than according to you the image may be thumbed smaller? Fine. I, however, tend to give a little more information on thumbs. Take the image of the shuttlebay for example, underneath which can be read: "Shuttlebay of the Intrepid class starship with the aft crew's lounge underneath it." Now, I could just have written "Shuttlebay" there, but I think that kinda amateuristic. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm sure you wouldn't mind directing me to wherever it is written in the rules that "the image has to be bigger than it's description". Frankly, I never read that somewhere. If it's in Memory Alpha's rules, than I apoligize and will probably put that particular rule at debate, since I think it's ridiculous. Furthermore, that we do not optimize for 800 by 600 resolutions doesn't mean we can completely ignore it. When using 1024x768 or higher, it really doesn't matter such whether an image is 160 or 180 px width. Using 800x600, however, it can make quite a difference, also becauce MA doesn't use the whole width of the screen... Finally, I would want to ask you that if you come across something on an article that you do not agree with, style-wise, then start a discussion on the article's talk page first, before making drastic edits to the article. Thank you very much. Ottens 21:39, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) VFD for USS Voyager prototype ;USS Voyager prototype Information integrated on the page. I don't think a background information related topic like this deserves its own article. Ottens 13:59, 30 Sep 2005 (UTC) * Delete --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) **'Deleted' --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC) Protection :Protected on the request of OuroborosCobra because of repeated addition of unsourced figures by both un-registered and newly-registered members; edit war like behaviour The page is quite big and during an edit war every version is saved. Discuss the following claims: * crew size is 200 (instead of 150 as I do remember and was in article before), * Voyager was third vessel constructed. State sources please -- Kobi 20:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Is startrek.com considered canon?: * "An Intrepid-class vessel capable of holding 200 crew members, the U.S.S. Voyager NCC-74656 is one of the fastest and most powerful starships in Starfleet." - http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70517.html * "The U.S.S. Voyager is the second of only four Intrepid-class starships built by Starfleet to date, launched in 2371 on stardate 48038.5." - http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/ships/article/70517.html 22 December 2006 :Startrek.com is not canon. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC) ::It has been over two weeks since that user edited, so I am unprotecting the page. -- Jaz talk 22:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Number of vessels As it is now the number of ships that would have the capability to land on a planet is described as follows, "Being one of the few Starfleet starship classes capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, .." I do not agree with this because this would make the suggestion that there are more ship classes who would be able to land. (keep in mind we are talking about ship classes not the ships within a class) I have changed this to, "Being the only known Starfleet starship class capable of atmospheric entry and planetary landing, ..." as this better describes that Voyager was the only ship seen on screen landing on a planet but there might be more classes. My change was reverted on the account that is was based on speculation but what about the speculation that there are more ship classes that can land on a planet, is that not a very big speculation ? Although, we the readers should be viewed as all knowing within the ST universe I do not think that assuming that there are more ship classes that can land on a planet is correct. There is simply no canon info to support that and to me it seems strang to invent ship classes, unknown by us readers, that can land other then the canon ones. -- Q 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC) :Can you tell me, beyond 100% doubt, that the Antares class, the Renaissance class, the Mediterranean class, the Andromeda class, Bradbury class, etc. could not land on planets? No. Was it ever stated in canon that the Intrepid was the only one in more than 200 years of history? No. Not to mention there is the Erewon class, which could land. We can say, based on observation, that it was one of the only, but not the only. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC) :: No, no one can tell for 100%, the oposite is also true. I am not disputing that there migt be more, but the way it is described. I find "one of the few" misleading, where are the few, better still who are they, I, the reader wants to know. To me with "the only known" tells me that this is the only known so why bother to look for more ? Yes, I know, nitpicking but that's me. I found is a strange sentence, unclear to me anyway, that's why I've changed it. -- Q 21:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Maximum Speed From the article: : "Maximum Speed: Warp 9.975" and "Nearly 350 meters long, the Intrepid-class is built sleek and long, sporting the fastest top speed on record for a Starfleet vessel until the Sovereign and Prometheus-class cruisers came into service." However, following the links, i get that the Sovereign class's is somewhere above warp 9 and the Prometheus class reaches warp 9.9, which is even less then then the Intrepid. Unfortunatly, i dont know what of this is wrong, but it would be nice if someone else could get a look on it. -- : While the Enterprise was shown going at "maximum warp" on a couple occasions, it was never stated as traveling any faster than Warp 8. Nor was Voyager ever specifically stated as having "the fastest top speed on record". --Alan 22:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC) ::What about the Prometheus ? The article only mentiones a "Speed" of 9.9 - if thats the maximal possible speed, Intrepid class vessels could get faster, or does it refer to its cruising speed ? -- 15:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC) :::While the Prometheus was stated to be travelling at 9.9 in the episode it is also stated that it's the fastest ship in the fleet by the EMH-2. It's is possible that for some unknown reason the Prometheus wasn't travelling at it's top speed. -- 23:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC) ::::What i have always taken the mention of the Prometheus being the fastest ship in the fleet to mean is that it can sustain a higher speed than any ship before it, maybe it's maximum possible speed is warp 9.9 but it can sustain that indefinitely, or at least much longer than any previous ship. Summerpanda 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Is 9.975 really the maximum absolute speed? Direct quotes are "sustainable cruise velocity" from "Caretaker" and "top cruising speed" from "Relativity". But isn't "cruising" speed usually the term for the speed a ship can maintain for extended periods of time. Not the absolute max limit when the ship risks structural integrity failure and warp core burn-out etc. --Pseudohuman 07:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Information on creation Is there any information on what reason the class was created? What tactical function they were supposed to use? The Defiant class was created to fight the Borg, Sovereign class combined Galaxy class "comforts" with extreme power, Prometheus as a state of the art warship, Intrepid was created for .... 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Folding Warp Pylons? Any info on why voyager does this? Its mentioned in the article that it does it, but not why. Always hated this concept. If it needs to be folded when the ship goes to warp, why not always have them folded? Less moving parts=less that can go wrong.-- 03:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC) : See tha article about variable geometry pylons for answer. -- 13:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Apocryphal Appearances I think this section should probably be removed. Seriously. Some might start posting these on every ship page and I don't think we need a bunch of references to books and games for each ship. If we limit it to those games/books where the ship class was the star then I don't see a problem. However, Armada II and Bridge Commander both don't really focus on the Intrepid they're just there. – Morder 20:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC) Removed Bridge Commander reference from the Apocryphal Appearances Since it only appears In a Mod form and Not In the Game itself – Archer02 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Removed text An anon ( ) just removed a large section of text: :* A dedicated count of the hull indicates the presence of fifteen phaser arrays on the ''Intrepid-class rather than the thirteen featured in this article.'' :* On-screen, the ''Intrepid-class phasers never appear to pack the wallop of those fired by the throughout Star Trek: The Next Generation which carries Type 10 phaser arrays. Some fans have speculated that perhaps the Intrepid Class' phaser arrays are not Type 10. Actually, the maximum output of a Type 10 array depends on the total number of emitter segments in the array. The final beam output is a combination of all the emitter segments working in concert (this is why we see a glow start at each edge of the array converging at the emission point prior to firing). Voyager s phasers are, in fact, Type 10, but the arrays have fewer emitter segments owing to Voyager s smaller hull. (And Galaxy-class can produce more power, to feed the many emitters)'' I felt that I should add it here, so that it's not lost. Please note that large text removals should be put onto the talk page to preserve them. -- Sulfur 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) : I always liked this text, and I'm going to put it back if nobody minds. It seems accurate enough, and explains things I was always curious about. Trainik 16:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC) :: Nevermind. I checked the IP address who removed the stuff, and he/she commented that the stuff was just assumptions. I don't know otherwise, so I'll take it off again. Sorry. Trainik 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Number of Arrays I am curious, the article's sidebar says "15 phaser banks" while the article itself mentions "13 phaser arrays", which one is it? --Terran Officer 04:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)